A very interesting cover story in this week’s City Pages, an interview with a NYT journalist on his new book about taxes in America. Wow. This guy’s got the stats to prove what we’ve suspected all along: big business has been legislating its own wealth.
I’ve been trying to follow the current Social Security debate, and this quote I found very provocative.
: Another complex topic you render understandable in your book is how Social Security has been used to underwrite cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. Given how hard Bush leaned on Social Security to finance those tax cuts during his first term, is his plan to privatize it going to come back to haunt him?
Johnston: None of the news coverage of social security is addressing how it is a subsidy program for the super rich, none of it is addressing that President Bush is not being internally consistent when he says I want you to have more of your own money. Why isn’t he simply proposing that we reduce social security taxes by the amount of money he thinks younger workers shouldn’t pay, and then they can choose whether they want to spend it, which would stimulate the economy, or save it, which would stimulate long-term investment? Instead, why is he proposing to create a massive, new government program that will funnel fees to Wall Street? None of the news coverage is stepping back and asking that. It’s all reactive to what the president is saying. I think that’s in good part because the Democrats don’t have a clue. The Republicans have an agenda and the Democrats don’t have a clue.
Now, the reason the president would not propose letting younger workers pay a reduced social security tax in return for smaller benefits is that it would immediately expose that the financing of his tax cuts depends in good part on middle class workers paying excess social security taxes so that rich people can have lower income taxes. It would bring it right to the front of the budget debate. So they would never propose that.
I’d love to hear from any economics-savvy folks out there on what you think about the validity of these claims.
Richard Fletcher gives us a nice little summary of the formative years of Christian/Muslim interaction. And they weren’t pretty. Or simple. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the current conflict between Christians and Muslims.
It’s a sibling rivalry, similar in dynamic to the Jewish/Christian relationship. I particularly like Jon Levenson’s book on the Jewish themes of this complicated rivalry. The most fascinating similarity is that Christians in the early years of Islam saw it as just another Christian sect — in much the same way that Judaism saw early Christianity as a Jewish sect.
Trying to be more fun to look at. I’m a Unix geek and don’t immediately think of graphics as a good use of bandwidth, but if it makes the page more interesting to look at, I’ll try anything once. 🙂
the internet is such a strange and glorious place. where else could a little term paper and my decision to drop out of grad school stir up passions amongst a bunch of strangers.
seems my library search got picked up on lisnews.com and several folks decided to weigh in.
it’s not about the money, silly. it’s about my time, and with whom I spend it.
as Gillian Welch once sung it:
never minded working hard -- it's who I'm workin' for
The hot buzz book in lefty circles right now, Thomas Frank offers a provocative theory on why many American conservatives vote against their own economic interests. He re-frames the current political clash as a struggle between classes, over the rightful claim to who is the authentic American.
He doesn’t spend enough time looking at the psyche of the American evangelical, who he caricatures accurately enough but doesn’t understand internally. The rest of his book is spot on: entertaining, insightful, and I want to re-read it with a notebook in hand.